JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Nanabai filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner Ashok Kumar and Subhash Chand non-petitioner No. 2. On an application filed by the plaintiff dated April 15, 1980 the court directed the tenants to deposit the future rent in the current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff in the Johari Bazar Branch of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited. The plaintiff then moved an application on January 2, 1986 that the defendants have not deposited the rent for the months of June and July 1985 and then from October 1985 to January, 1986 in the savings account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently submitted another application on March 22, 1986 that the rent for the aforesaid months had not been deposited in the current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff. The defendants on receiving the above application went to the bank and came to know that the rent deposited by them for the aforesaid months was lying in sundry account and was not deposited in the above mentioned current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff. The bank subsequently transferred the amount deposited for the aforesaid months on May 10, 1986 in the current account of the plaintiff. The defendants in the above circumstances submitted in the reply that the rent for the aforesaid months of June and July 1985 and from October 1985 to January 1986 had been deposited in the bank before the 15th of the next succeeding month but the same wrongly remained lying in the sundry account and was subsequently transferred in the current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff on May 10, 1986. The defendants in these circumstances took the plea that no default was committed by them in depositing the amount before 15th of the next succeeding month and the application for striking of defence against eviction should be dismissed. The trial court by order dated September 15, 1986 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff aggrieved against the aforesaid order filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur city who heard the appeal allowed the appeal by order dated May 10, 1988 and passed an order striking of the defence against eviction of the defendants. 2. The plaintiff aggrieved against the aforesaid order filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur city who heard the appeal allowed the appeal by order dated May 10, 1988 and passed an order striking of the defence against eviction of the defendants. 2. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City dated May 10, 1988 the present revision has been filed by one of the tenants Ashok Kumar. 3. It was contended by Mr. N.K. Joshi appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the rent for the months June and July 1985 as well as October 1985 to January 1986 was deposited before the 15th of the next succeeding month. It was submitted that due to in advertence the account number in the pay slip was wrongly mentioned as savings account No. 2769 instead of current account No. 2769. It was submitted that on account of this mistake the amount of rent remained lying in the sundry account and was subsequently transferred in the current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff on May 10 1986. It was submitted that a full bench of this court in Vishandas Vs. Savitri Devi 1988 (1) RLR 1 (FB) = 1988 (1) RLW 363, has already held that the provisions of Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are not mandatory and are directory. It was thus argued that the mistake if any was not committed deliberately or in order to put any loss to the plaintiff and there was good and sufficient cause for condoning the mistake. (....... illegible) the lower appellate court has found the explanation given by the defendants as not correct. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. It remains undisputed that the rent for the months of June and July 1985 as well as from October 1985 to January, 1986 had been deposited in the Bank of Rajasthan Johari Bazar Branch before the 15th of the next succeeding month. The only mistake committed by the defendants was that in the pay slip the account number of the plaintiff was wrongly mentioned as saving account in place of current account. The only mistake committed by the defendants was that in the pay slip the account number of the plaintiff was wrongly mentioned as saving account in place of current account. In view of the above mistake the bank kept the amount in sundry deposit as there was no savings account of the plaintiff bearing No. 2769. As soon as the present application for striking of the defence against eviction was filed by the plaintiff landlord the defendants went to the bank and found that the amount was still lying in deposit in sundry account and the defendants in these circumstances requested the bank to transfer the amount in the current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff. The bank in these circumstances transferred the amount on May 10 1986 in the current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff. It is no doubt correct that the defendants wrongly thought it to be a mistake of the bank in not crediting the amount in the current account No. 2769 of the plaintiff but in fact the mistake appears to have been committed by the person filling the deposit slip in which though the account number was correctly mentioned as 2769 but it was wrongly mentioned as savings account in place of current account. The purpose and intention of laying down the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act is that the defendant tenants should not make any default in depositing or paying the amount to the landlord beyond the time fixed by the court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act or after the 15th of each succeeding month in case of the future rent. If the tenant makes a default in depositing such amount in the court or paying to the landlord then his defence is liable to be struck out as contemplated in Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. From a perusal of the admitted facts in the present case it is borne out that the amount of rent for the months of June and July 1985 as well as from October 1985 to January 1986 had been deposited by the defendants in the Bank before the 15th of the next succeeding month. The mistake was committed on account of wrongly mentioning the account as savings account in place of current account. The mistake was committed on account of wrongly mentioning the account as savings account in place of current account. In view of the above circumstances it cannot be said that the defendant-tenants were guilty of any intentional non-payment of rent to the landlord by the 15th of each succeeding month as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. The order striking of defence against eviction of a tenant is a penal provision and while exercising such power and passing an order against the tenant it has to be seen whether the tenant was intentionally not making the deposit or payment within time given by the court or prescribed tinder Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. Lower appellate court in the present case committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing a penal order of striking of defence against eviction of the tenant. Even if the defendants were wrongly considering it to be a mistake of the Bank the fact remains that they had deposited the rent in the Bank before the 15th of the next Succeeding month. It would be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff herself in the application filed by her on January 2, 1986 had committed a mistake of mentioning that the defendant-tenants have not deposited the amount of rent in her savings account. Admittedly there was no savings account of the plaintiff in the Johari Bazar Branch of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited and the plaintiff had to correct the above mistake by moving another application on March 22, 1986 in which it was stated that the amount of rent was not deposited in her current account No. 2769. In view of these circumstances the kind of mistake committed by the tenants in the present case cannot tantamount as failing to deposit or paying the amount as referred in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act and make them liable for striking out their defence against eviction. 5. In the result this revision is allowed and the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur city dated May 10, 1988 is set aside and the order of the trial court is maintained.Revision allowed. *******